Rosetta Stone for Science

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

From a public health viewpoint, this argument might not
hold as much water as the Wakefield research that suggested a link between
children’s vaccinations, but it is still a concern. Because of the society in which we live, LGBT
individuals face discrimination, violence, and misunderstanding, and the lack
of knowledge surrounding the environmental and hereditary components of an LGBT
identity, parents who are led to believe that the mercury in vaccines causes
homosexuality may be reluctant to vaccinate their children. In a country that is heavily religious, and
in that sense, may be more morally and politically opposed to LGBT rights, this
argument may hold more sway than in a country where there is an active push for
LGBT rights and ethical treatment, such as the United States.

Let’s look at the issue of mercury poisoning. According to faculty at the University of
Washington’s Neuroscience Department, mercury exposure in childhood can damage
primarily the visual cortex, the cerebellum, and the dorsal root ganglia. Obviously, the visual cortex deals with
vision, the cerebellum coordinates movement, and the dorsal root ganglia transmit
sensory information to the brain. Granted, a damaged visual cortex would make it difficult to read the signs outside a gay strip club, which might result in an embarrassing blunder, but these brain areas could not otherwise predispose someone to "become gay". Nowhere does it say that mercury poisoning
damages the frontal lobes, the “seat” of personality and decision making. Furthermore, Vanoli fails to detail the areas
the mercury would affect; stating only that the mercury damages the “formation
of personality”. From my perspective, minimizing
something as central to identity as sexual orientation or gender identity to a
personality trait is insensitive as best, and dehumanizing at worst.

Furthermore, describing homosexuality as “microform of
autism” is overwhelmingly offensive and just plain wrong. It’s wrong from an ethical perspective to
compare a neuropsychological condition to an aspect of gender and sexual
identity that has been determined to be not pathological by the APA. This comparison reflects Vanoli’s
insensitivity but also his lack of psychological knowledge. Also, we must consider Vanoli’s inherent
biases, especially when he is described as a “scientist, journalist, and
opponent of vaccines. I did a little digging
on Vanoli, and I found that in Italy, he is considered more of an “infamous”
scientist (at least, that’s what my translation said), who is known for
producing fringe theories. An analog
would be the researchers who deny the causal link between HIV and AIDS.

I think this topic connects nicely to some of my earlier
posts about representing both sides of an issue. Certainly, this is one of those instances
where representing both sides of an issue is not “fair” to the reader. This fringe theory that is driven by
misunderstanding, fear, and a desire to keep a minority population marginalized
and powerless has no valid place in the research about vaccine risks, genetics,
or dangers of environmental toxin exposure in children.

Friday, March 29, 2013

I think at an idea central to this
concept is the confirmation bias. When
people look at a source like Fox News (or MSNBC, or the Huffington Post, for
that matter), we are looking for information that confirms our current feelings
and beliefs. I would assume that many Fox
News viewers do not hold liberal views about policy, the environment,
government, or social issues, and that when they see a story on fox News that
supports their position, they are more likely to believe it than someone with
more moderate views. I think the idea of
“fair and balanced” is more of a spin tactic than a true statement about the
nature of Fox News (or any news outlet for that matter)’s reporting. I think it is tough for a news outlet, whose
primary directive is to retain viewers and make money through advertisement and
viewership, to actively challenge the viewpoints of its faithful. When people’s beliefs are challenged, they
may be more likely to change the channel, which leads to lost revenue. Balancing budgets does not make for balanced
news, and it’s hardly fair to the viewer when a network’s profit margin is
placed above the potential benefit of trying to be as objective as possible. Unfortunately, anyone who relies exclusively
on a major news network for their information is going to be misinformed in
some way, whether it’s the fault of simple omissions or getting the news from a
source that wants to influence public belief to its agenda.

Challenging previously held beliefs
is a source of cognitive dissonance, and we know very well that cognitive
dissonance is uncomfortable. But, that’s
where the learning happens: at the end of our comfort zones. When our previous
beliefs do not “line up” with new information, it is sometimes difficult for us
to process. When our beliefs are
challenged, it sometimes sets off a train of re-evaluation; “Does my change of
belief on this subject affect my other ideas about the world?”

An
example could be challenging the belief that climate change is not a potentially
disastrous global problem. Perhaps if
someone were to challenge that belief, they would be able to challenge others
as well. Challenging the beliefs about
climate change could lead people to challenge and perhaps change their ideas
about leading sustainable lives, driving their cars less or carpooling, using
more energy efficient appliances, and perhaps even joining advocacy groups to
increase awareness in their neighborhoods.

The willingness to challenge those
long held beliefs is the key, and this brings me back to one of my first
posts. When individuals are willing to
challenge their previous beliefs, they often adopt a new belief in its
place. Our job as science writers is to
make science and information accessible to those who wish to challenge their
views or replace antiquated ones. When
we make the information accessible and clear in a way that doesn’t alienate or
belittle those with different views, we are ensuring that individuals who wish
to change their views will feel like they are accessing objective, meaningful information. We need to make the information available to
those people who want to change, and it is our responsibility to be the most
objective writers we possibly can to ensure that our readers (and potential “converts”)
are getting the most unbiased information we can give.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

As we discussed balance during the
last class, I was intrigued by Dr. Edwards’ idea of the difference between “balanced”
and “fair”. It is “fair” to our readers to
be unconditionally balanced in reporting?
Is it fair to report two perspectives on a hot-button issue that affects
the health of our readers? I really do
not think that it is fair to the readers to represent the side of research that
has not been supported by numerous studies.
What if we were to represent Freud’s viewpoints along with newer, more
supported research about interpersonal interaction? The problem with representing these “fringe”
or outdated theories as truth is that it presents the risk that individuals with
limited science knowledge will accept that fringe perspective as equally valid
to the perspective that has been supported by countless studies.

To illustrate the dangers or
overvaluing these fringe beliefs, I would like to present a hypothetical
situation. Let’s take a man who finished
high school but has not attended an undergraduate institution (not to say that
individuals who choose not to get a bachelor’s degree are inferior, but,
depending upon their interests and occupation, they may have fewer
opportunities to access scientific material or dialogue). Let’s say that he has a child who is
experiencing gastrointestinal distress.
He goes to his trusty computer and types in “stomach problems and
children”. And then, let’s say he comes
across an article that says his child might have a mild case of food poisoning,
or his child could have the beginning stages of autism. Both of these causes are linked to
gastrointestinal distress, but the claims of gastrointestinal distress being
linked to autism are highly debatable. If
this possibility were presented with no caveat, this father might immediately
schedule long and expensive tests with a pediatric specialist, which could
break the bank if not covered by insurance.

As science writers, we need to be
careful how we’re representing the information.
It’s okay to mention the “other side” of an issue, particularly if the
other side has some credence. For
example, it would be completely irresponsible to represent intelligence as
completely genetically heritable (nature) without bringing up the environmental
factors that contribute to the development of intelligence (nurture). When faced with a situation like this,
science writers should certainly represent the other view. However, when representing the other view
would confuse readers or cloud their understanding of the issue, one must tread
very carefully. A balanced approach is
not always fair to the reader, and when science writers are aware that reporting
the other side of their issue may jeopardize their obligation to be fair to
their readers, they must write in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the
readers. It is important to still
challenge the reader and inspire him or her to think deeply, but we also need
to be aware that treating all views equally is irresponsible and can leave the
reader more confused than when he or she started the piece.

Friday, March 15, 2013

Drawing
a scientist might have gone differently for me than it went for most people. I had talked earlier in the day to one of the
students who spent her winter break in Costa Rica with the biology department,
and consequently the idea of scientists going out into the world to test
hypotheses, chase animals, and collect data was fresh in my mind when I drew my
two scientists. The first drawing
features my friend who spent time in Costa Rica. She’s outside at night with a net, looking to
catch some bats. She is wearing some
outdoorsy gear: shorts, a t-shirt, and hiking boots, and is pointing excitedly
at some sort of horribly mutated bat (the victim of my sub-par art
skills). This drawing of my friend speaks to some of my
attitudes about science and who can “do science”. I think that scientific aptitude is not
limited by a degree, and is not determined by the letters preceding one’s
name. My friend is one of the most scientifically
literate, inquisitive people out there, and I think that drawing her on her
Costa Rica trip was my way of voicing that idea.

This bat may or may not have been exposed to radiation, causing its wings to took strikingly like muscle-y arms.

I drew a
second scientist because I wanted to draw a more “traditional” scientist. This is also an illustration from that Costa
Rica trip. Yes, that is Dr. Robert
Dawley looking at an iguana and in danger of falling on a cactus (which, I was
told, he did fall on after looking at the iguana). This drawing of a scientist might look a
little bit more like the “traditional” idea of what a scientist might be: he
has curly hair, glasses, he might be a little clumsy (as suggested by the
cactus), and is absorbed in his work. But,
he’s also out in the hot Costa Rican sun and teaching others about his
scientific focus, so I think that this drawing of a scientist still differs
from the norm.

Dr. Dawley and an iguana. He looks like our more traditional conception of a scientist because

his hair is, in reality, a little crazy. I wish you could see the iguana in greater detail, because it is a triumph.

My good
friend Will also drew a scientist for me.
His drawing was astoundingly detailed, and much better than my awful “artwork”. His drawing featured a man in his
mid-thirties standing in a lab, holding an Erlenmeyer Flask, looking thoughtful
and surrounded by microscopes, machines, and chemicals. The scientist is young and handsome-looking,
which defies conventional beliefs about scientists, but he is also looking
aloof and pensive, which I think reflects some more “traditional” ideas about
science. When I asked Will what the
different machines he had drawn were, he said “I’m really not sure, I thought it
looked cool.” I think that Will’s
drawing speaks to some attitudes that we hold about science and scientists: that
science is “cool”, but we’re not exactly sure about the science and the
mechanics involved. When most people think about scientists, they
might be thinking of a social conception of what a scientist does and what he
or she looks like. Will is a humanities
major, and so has had one science class in his time here. He has not had that much exposure to
scientists at Ursinus, and I think this has caused him to lean more heavily on
society’s conception of what a scientist might look like.

I think
that’s the crux of the problem with society’s mistrust of science: a lack of
exposure. We have trouble seeing
scientists as regular people who put their pants on one leg at a time (until
someone invents a contraption to streamline pants wearing, that is), because we
don’t see much of scientists in the public sphere. When we hear about a scientific discovery, we
tend to hear more about the discovery itself and what it means than about the
scientists behind it. For example, many
people are talking about the baby that a research team from John’s Hopkins, the
University of Mississippi, and UMass that may have cured a baby infected with
HIV. Unfortunately, people don’t take
the time to learn that Dr. Deborah Persaud, the lead author of the paper is a working
mom with kids just like many women in America and around the globe. She has to worry about whose day it is to
pick the kids up at daycare (in fact, according to a news article, she once
almost missed a party given in her honor because she was convinced it was her
day to pick up her toddlers from daycare), she has to do her taxes, and she
reads gossip magazines.

We as a
nation need to make the notion that scientists are regular people more
accessible to everyone. By perpetuating the
stereotype that scientists (and by extension, science) are intimidating, we are
making it more difficult for young people to overcome their reservations about
going into the sciences. As science
journalists, it should be our responsibility to make sure that science and scientists are presented as interesting
and accessible rather than distant, unfeeling, and cold. I would strive to do this by finding
relatable personal characteristics for the scientists I interview for
writing. I want to present not only the
science, but the human behind that science; maybe they tell a good joke or have
a great collection of coffee mugs or you can hear the excitement in their voice
as they talk about their research. The
more characteristics that readers can identify with, the greater the chance
that they will pursue their interests further and consider science as something
within reach instead of something reserved for those with an advanced degree.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

I
think that there’s definitely something to be said for intuition. When presented in a dry or unappealing way,
science can be, as Colbert says, “all fact and no heart”. It’s sometimes tough to connect with
something when you feel it is not accessible or compelling, especially when
making important decisions—whether about health, diet, mental state, or
purchasing. When we have gaps in our knowledge about a concept related to
science, it’s often easier to go with our “gut feeling” rather than spend time
researching, evaluating, and interpreting information with which we’re not
familiar. We often rely on the interpretations of doctors, mental health
professionals, journalists, and yes, even celebrities when something is frightening
or foreign to us. Our propensity to
allow others to interpret scientific findings can be helpful, but also presents
the danger of receiving biased information. Bias, whether intentional (and, consequently
well-intentioned or ill intentioned) or unintentional, is impossible to
avoid. When we process information, we
bring out past experiences, beliefs, and relevant knowledge to our
interpretation. This is almost
impossible to avoid in some degree.

That being said, I think there’s a
difference between being sensitive to your audience and understanding bias
versus reporting something that is “truthy”.
I think that science writers can report a story is a manner that is
sensitive and has a combination of “heart and brain” without omitting or overly
biasing the material. Sometimes, it is
the science writers’ job to interpret sensitive or confusing material and we
must take it as our responsibility to present the material in the clearest and
most accessible way, while still preserving most of the science behind a
concept. I think that it might be
appropriate at times to insert a point of view into a piece, but there is a
difference between a point of view and “truthiness”. Substituting “truthiness” for truth in the media
can prevent individuals, corporations, and policy makers from accessing the
most meaningful and scientifically sound material, which can affect the
decisions that entities of all levels (individual, corporate, industrial, etc)
make. Reporting the “truthy” story may
lead to misinformation and misconception, so as science writers, we must walk a
fine line between being sensitive to our readers’ needs and aware of bias and
reporting material that is less than truthful.
It is important to ensure that we’re reporting science news with the
most attention to integrity and a keen eye towards avoiding the pitfalls of “truthiness”.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

I think that the tendency of
vaccine-autism advocates to believe Jenny McCarthy over scientific evidence
speaks to a source-confirmation bias.
When individuals are having their beliefs reinforced (whether they are
credible or built upon misinformation), they are more likely to ascribe to
beliefs that may be scientifically unsound.
The idea that other people believe the same thing is powerful, and in
the case of vaccine-autism advocates, there are hundreds of support groups,
Facebook pages, lobbyists, politicians, and celebrities trumpeting the link
between vaccines and autism. This
indicates to me that science writers have a formidable challenge: to change the
minds of vaccine-advocates, who have influential groups (and a former Playmate)
telling them that they are correct in their thinking. The only way to approach this is with
measured, meaningful steps, sort of like the way Melinda Mae prepared to eat the whale in
the Shel Silverstein poem:

As a science writer, the
vaccine-autism advocates and others who may need to increase their scientific
literacy for their own (and others’) health present us with a challenge. With regard to something as important as
vaccinating a child (and, increasingly, preserving the “herd immunity” for
those who are unable to be vaccinated due to outside circumstances), science
writers need to “up the game”. I’m not
saying that we need to be shoving our truth in the faces of the vaccine-autism
advocates, much to the contrary. I think
that science writers need to seriously evaluate how we approach populations who
cling to misinformation in spite of science.

In the Lewandosky journal article,
the authors talk a good bit about recommendations for decreasing the effects of
misinformation. Integral in dispelling
misinformation and replacing these misconceptions with more scientifically
sound ideas is the idea of discussion.
When it comes to creating lasting and meaningful change in the minds of
the public, persuasion is not a monologue.
It is so important to discuss the reasons why an idea is based in
misinformation, keeping in mind the importance of sensitivity. An individual who believes in a
scientifically unsound idea is still entitled to those beliefs, and attacking
those beliefs may feel like an attack on the person himself. It is essential to approach the individual in
a respectful way that seeks to dissect the differences between fact and fiction
in an accessible way (think of that “incomprehensible” Lancet retraction with
the autism findings). This is a “sit-down
chat”, as my father says, not an instance where we lob information at the
individual and assume that they will want to scrape our omnipotent knowledge off
of the floor once we’re gone.

In order to create this respectful
discourse, it is essential that we work to understand the source of the
misinformation. We need to put ourselves in the shoes of the parents of a
non-verbal autistic child, who are looking for answers as to what is causing
their child’s behavior. Having a non-neurotypical
child is a challenge for many parents: it can cause relationship stress,
exhaustion, financial woes, and, in some cases, can cause parents to sacrifice
friends, careers, and dreams for the future.
These parents (and those who share their concerns) are victims of the
human tendency to seek patterns and look for answers. While science writers can illuminate that
vaccines do not cause autism, we need to be careful in the way that we challenge
the beliefs of others. If we take away a
cause and a belief system, we should be conscious of what kind of effects this
might have on parents and advocates.

Consequently, we must replace this
misinformation with powerful, scientifically-valid information to which those
who espouse a connection between vaccines and autism can connect. The Lewandosky article discussed how
important it is to replace the misinformation with fact that can fill the gaps
in the narrative caused by the rejection of misinformation. In this case,
science writers could introduce the increased awareness among clinicians, the
expanded spectrum for autism and regressive developmental disorders, other
environmental factors, and the possible genetic link discussed in the Wired
article as explanations for where autism comes from and why diagnoses are on
the rise.

Finally, I believe that it is
science’s job to foster a healthy skepticism in the population. Science writers
can contribute to this by asking their readers to question the sources of their
information (“who is writing?” “with whom are they associated?” “what kind of
study was performed?” “what conclusions were reached?”). Additionally, by writing compelling articles
and making other sources of information on the topics accessible to our
readers, we are increasing the amount that an individual can learn about the
topic. Additionally, we can be careful
not to sensationalize or overextend findings before they have been found to be
scientifically valid. As one of the
articles from the reading so eloquently put it, “you cannot un-ring a bell”. Before sounding the alarm, science journalists
need to consider the ripple effect of their announcements.

Someday, I hope that we can look back on the vaccine-autism connection the same way that we look at the geocentric hypothesis or the Four Humor theory of disease today. Like these outdated ideas, a push of discovery to replace misinformation with new information is necessary, and science writers must be prepared to deliver this information in a sensitive and accessible way to the public.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

First of all, I want to take
some blog space to say how utterly cool Dr. Hirsch-Pasek is. She seems like a pretty incomparable human,
and Ursinus was so fortunate to have her come to talk to us. I immensely enjoyed her talk, and wish that
she would come and hang out more often!

One of the most important things
that I took from Dr. Hirsch-Pasek’s talk is that it is of utmost importance to
make scientific findings (and the concrete benefits from those scientific
findings) available to the general public. The best way that she did this (in
my humble opinion) was to take her research findings about learning through
play and turn those findings into the basis for the Ultimate Block Party event
that is now traveling nationally and internationally. This is one of the ways that science can work
to “give” itself to the general population: by taking research findings and
translating them into actual policy changes, opportunities to improve the
general public’s lives, or a giant Block Party in Central Park. One of the best ways to give science away is
to give the general public direct access to the positive changes that science
can create. However, this is not
enough. People cannot just eat out of the
hand of the benevolent scientist, unaware of the science and theory behind the
policies, disease or behavioral interventions, or educational legislation. An understanding of the science behind the
everyday improvements is necessary—this is where the science writer comes
in. It is the science writer’s job to
make the science behind the Ultimate Block party interesting and compelling, because
(unfortunately!) Dr. Hirsch-Pasek cannot be everywhere at once.

Another way to “give away”
science involves the idea of humility and a desire to help others for greater
good. I think that the notion of “giving
science away” has a lot to do with setting aside ego and desire for
recognition. When an individual places
the interests of others above his own, it creates a community and a more
egalitarian relationship. Think about
every single research project that an Ursinus student does: when he or she
ventures off of the map a little, toward that shadowy place of foreign research
journals or “niche-y” subjects, toward the place where Myrin’s subscription
does not extend, there is a wall of paid subscription access. Why, if I am making a good-faith effort to
expand my scientific (or humanities or social science or music) knowledge, is
my access denied because of my lack of subscription to a journal? These kinds of partitions between the
knowledge and the knowledge-seeker are an enormous roadblock to seeking
knowledge. I think that the problem of
the unavailability of meaningful science writing is compounded by the
unavailability of general scholarly science materials. Even if the general public wanted to access
science materials, these kinds of elitist roadblocks would prevent them from
doing so without a subscription. While I think that scientists need to “give
away” their science, that is not enough.
They need to be the ones who are involved in bringing it to the
people. Scientists and scientific
disciplines must work to change the public perception of science as an elitist
and “scary”. It is not enough to “open
the doors” to science; scientists and science writers should make the general
public want to step over the threshold and enter a world where they can
challenge themselves and discover a different way of thinking. As a science writer, I think it is supremely
important to give science away—to make science exciting and engaging and to
encourage people to pursue their scientific interests further. But, if institutions, academic journals, and
individual scientists are not going to do their part in “The Great Science
Giveaway”, it will be a long road.

On a related
note, one of my favorite ways that some top universities are giving science
away (and other disciplines!) is through access to their course materials,
called Open Courseware. Check out MIT’s
open courseware offerings here: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/find-by-topic/